Bangalore District Court
/ : M/S.Dhanalakshmi Construction vs ) Union Of India on 12 June, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY
(CCCH.11)
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2019
PRESENT: Sri. Rama Naik, B.Com., LL.B.,
VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
A.S.NO:49/2003
PLAINTIFF / : M/S.DHANALAKSHMI CONSTRUCTION
PETITIONER B-3, Kapila Enclave,
No.18, H.B.Samaja Road,
Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru -560 004.
Reptd.by its Partner-Sri.Balaji.
/Vs/
DEFENDANTS : 1) UNION OF INDIA
RESPONDENTS Represented by Executive Engineer
Bangalore Central Division III,
Central Public Works Department,
Kendriya Sadan,
Bengaluru -560 034.
2) SRI.K.K.MUTREJA,
The Hon'ble Arbitrator,
Ministry of Urban Development,
4th Floor, Old CGO Building,
101, M.K.Road,
Mumbai - 400 020.
---
AS.49/2003
2
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by Plaintiff under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for setting aside arbitral award dated 02.07.2003 and correction award dated 05.08.2003 passed by 2nd Defendant.
2) Plaintiff's case, in brief, is that, Plaintiff is a Class-I Contractor. He was awarded a contract by defendant No.1 for construction of building at CICEF at Bengaluru, for a sum of Rs.69,59,127/-. As per the terms of contract, Plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- being a security deposit with 1 st Defendant and work was required to be commenced on 27.08.2000 and completed on 26.11.2001.
3) It is stated that Plaintiff commenced the work as per the terms of contract. 1 st Defendant delayed in handing over possession of site to commence the AS.49/2003 3 work within time and also delayed in giving instructions and group marking. Due to change in drawings, the work was delayed. Delay is solely due to the act of 1st Defendant. Plaintiff is not responsible for delay in execution of work. Despite the work was done to an extent of Rs.7,72,630/-, 1 st Defendant unilaterally rescinded the contract on 19.03.2001. Even the contract period was valid till 26.11.2001. 1st Defendant forfeited the security deposit amount and awarded the balance work to the other contractor. As per Section 64 of the Indian Contract Act, when the contract is rescinded, contractor need not do the balance work and contractor is entitled for the value of the materials at the site and also entitled for cost of work done as on the date of rescinding the contract and contractor is also entitled for refund of security deposit amount.
AS.49/2003 4
4) It is further stated that, since 1st Defendant unilaterally rescinded the contract, Plaintiff filed an application on 11.05.2001 before 1 st Defendant for appointment of Arbitrator for settlement of claim made by him. In connection with the dispute, the arbitration proceedings were initiated between Plaintiff and 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant was appointed as sole Arbitrator. Plaintiff filed its claim petition in detail before 2nd Defendant making all the claims, which Plaintiff is entitled for, including refund of security deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- and produced supporting documents in respect of its claim. 1st Defendant filed his objection statement on 16.07.2000 disputing the claim of Plaintiff and also made counter claim of Rs.14,49,176/- being the alleged risk and cost amount. Plaintiff filed its rejoinder statement to the objection statement of 1st Defendant and also produced all the relevant documents in support of its claim. It is stated that without considering the claim petition and the AS.49/2003 5 documents produced by Plaintiff, 2nd Defendant has passed the impugned award on 02.07.2003 and correction award on 05.08.2003, whereby, 2 nd Defendant has rejected the claim of Plaintiff and directed Plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.7,45,780/- with interest at 8% per annum from 14.07.2001 till the date of payment to 1st Defendant.
5) Plaintiff, inter alia, has challenged the impugned award, on the following grounds :
(1) 2nd Defendant has wholly erred in not considering the fact that under Section 64 of Indian Contract Act, when the contract is rescinded, Plaintiff is not required to do the balance work and is entitled for the cost of work done on the date of rescinding the contract.
(2) 2nd Defendant has wholly erred in not considering the fact that, when the contract is unilaterally rescinded, Plaintiff is entitled for refund of security deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/-; and AS.49/2003 6 has erred in not refunding the security deposit amount and awarding the cost of the work done by Plaintiff till the date of rescinding the contract.
(3) 2nd Defendant has erred in not considering the fact that when the contract is unilaterally rescinded and balance work is allotted to other contractor, the question of risk and cost does not arise at all; and has erred in awarding a sum of Rs.7,45,780/- to 1 st Defendant towards risk and cost amount, though, 1st Defendant is not entitled for the same and has not produced any document in support of its claim.
(4) 2nd Defendant has erred in not considering the fact that as per new agreement/contract and as on the date of passing award, risk and cost claim is removed in the contract and hence, the award of Rs.7,45,780/- being the risk cost amount is illegal and contrary to the contract between the parties; and has erred in not considering the fact AS.49/2003 7 that action of unilaterally rescinding the contract by 1st Defendant is illegal and amounts to anticipatory breach as per Section 39 of the Indian Contract Act.
(5) 2nd Defendant has erred in not considering the fact that Plaintiff had time till 26.11.2001 to complete the work.
(6) 2nd Defendant has erred in awarding interest in the absence of agreement to pay interest and has passed the award exceeding the power and jurisdiction and the award passed by 2nd Defendant is beyond the scope of agreement and is not maintainable in law and is liable to be set aside.
(7) 2nd Defendant has passed the impugned award without giving
adequate opportunity to Plaintiff and the award came to be passed under bias and obligation, which is against the principles of natural justice and is against Public policy in not following the AS.49/2003 8 principles laid down in Section 64 of Contract Act.
(8) Award passed by 2nd Defendant is against the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Hence, for all these reasons, Plaintiff prays for setting aside the impugned award.
6) 1st Defendant marked appearance through its counsel and filed statement of objection contending that, Plaintiff has not made out any ingredient as necessitated under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Entire suit suffers from legal infirmity. Specific misconduct or error apparent on the face of the award has not been made out explicitly under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Award does not suffer from any mis-conduct or error. Plaintiff apparently have not surfaced any material mis-conduct by 2 nd Defendant either in the award or in the arbitration proceedings AS.49/2003 9 or about the conduct of the Arbitrator himself within the narrow compass of the provisions under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, so as to attract the powers of this court to interfere with the award. Since contract is an executory contract, parties cannot travel beyond the covenants of the agreement and moreover, grounds urged are not within the ambit of this court to decide the same. It is stated that the suit is contrary to Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and no grounds urged in the suit are sustainable either in law or on facts, hence, prays for dismissal of the suit with costs.
7) Heard learned counsels for parties. Perused the record.
8) Points that arise for my consideration are:-
(1) Whether Plaintiff has made out any of the grounds as enumerated under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation AS.49/2003 10 Act, 1996, to set aside the impugned award dated 02.07.2003 and 05.08.2003?
(2) What Order?
9) My answer to above points are :-
Point No.1 - Partly in the Affirmative;
Point No.2 - As per final order, for the following :
REASONS
10) POINT NO.1 : Plaintiff, being aggrieved by the unilateral termination of contract by Defendant No.1, filed an application on 11.05.2001 for appointment of Arbitrator and accordingly, 2 nd Defendant was appointed as Arbitrator, who passed the impugned award on 02.07.2003, whereby, the claim of Plaintiff and the counter claim of Defendant No.1 have been allowed in part.
Later, 2nd Defendant modified the impugned award passed on 02.07.2003 with respect to counter AS.49/2003 11 claim of Defendant No.1 by enhancing the counter claim No.1 of Defendant No.1 to Rs.9,28,280/- as against Rs.3,22,791/-, vide correction award dated 05.08.2003.
11) Plaintiff made the following claims before 2nd Defendant :
(1) Refund of Security Deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-.
(2) Loss of anticipated profit (15% of value of left over work) Rs.8,55,000/-.
In addition, Plaintiff made the following additional Claims :
(i) Payment towards cost of bore-
well sunk for the work -
Rs.69,920/-.
(ii) Payment towards cost of cement godown, office and watchman shed for the work -
Rs.2,30,000/-.
(iii) Payment towards construction of water tank Rs.46,000/-.
(iv) Payment towards
construction of labour
sheds for the work -
Rs.89,700/-.
(5) Payment towards construction of
concrete platform for the work -
Rs.21,850/-.
AS.49/2003 12 (6) Payment towards cleaning shrubs and leveling ground - Rs.31,395/-. (7) Payment towards setting and marking layout - Rs.8,395/-.
(8) Payment towards advances paid to labourers, suppliers -
Rs.1,95,500/-.
(9) Payment towards salary paid to staff on termination of their services after rescission of work - Rs.63,825/-.
(10) Payment for materials collected and lying unused at site -
Rs.1,01,660/-.
(11) Payment towards work done but not measured and paid - (Not assessed).
12) Defendant No.1 laid the following counter claim before 2nd Defendant :
(1) Extra cost for executing the balance work - Rs.14,49,176/-.
(2) Cost of Arbitration - Rs.50,000/-.
13) Learned Arbitrator/2nd Defendant allowed Claim No.1 and rejected Claim No.2 and partly allowed additional Claim No.1 to 5 and rejected AS.49/2003 13 additional Claim No.6 to 11 in its entirety made by Plaintiff, vide impugned award dated 02.07.2003.
Counter Claim No.1 and 2 of Defendant No.1 were allowed in part, vide impugned award dated 02.07.2003. Later, learned Arbitrator enhanced the claim amount under Counter Claim No.1 of Defendant No.1 as per correction award dated 05.08.2003.
14) Main contention that has been urged by Plaintiff, is that, 2nd Defendant erred in not considering the fact that under Section 64 of the Indian Contract Act, when contract is rescinded, Plaintiff is not required to do the balance work and is entitled for the cost of work done on the date of rescinding the contract and he is entitled for refund of Security Deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.
15) A bare reading of the impugned award makes it clear that, Plaintiff has not made any AS.49/2003 14 claim towards cost of work done on the date of rescinding the contract. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention the findings of learned Arbitrator towards Claim No.1 of Plaintiff and Counter Claim of Defendant No.1.
" The claimants, during the proceedings did agree that they delayed the work but the delay was minimal and they were liable to be penalized for delay and not rescission, whereas the respondents have established through their exhibits R-1 to R- 4 that the claimants were pursued to expedite the work and they failed to even put up any cement Godown till 6/9/2000 and no Engineer at site till 16.10,2000. The claimants did not even energise the bore-well for their requirements of basic necessity of water for construction. The exhibit R-7 dated 3/2001, throws further light on the fact that the site was abandoned completely for the last 2 months and the materials issued to the claimants were even lying unguarded. The cement Register shows last use of cement on 17.1.2001 and thereafter only 1 bag of cement was used on 31.1.2001. The work was undoubtedly to be done with predominant use of cement. The facts that, a. The claimants or any authorized representatives were not available at site, b. The claimants Engineer was appointed on 16.10.2000 and removed from the site, c. No work was proceeding and the claimants have not been able to explain then conduct & even failed to AS.49/2003 15 submit any definite programme for taking up or restarting the work, lead to the only conclusion that the claimants did abandon the work, thus causing fundamental breach and the respondents action to rescind the contract was strictly in terms of the relevant contract clause. The respondents are thus entitled to damages for the breaches caused by the claimants. The respondents have well illustrated that the claimants did not proceed with the work as they had quoted an abnormally low tender and the work was indeed abandoned by them, which clearly constitutes repudiation of contract and rescission by the claimants first and confirmed by the respondents, thus justifying the action of the respondents. The respondents were thus entitled to forfeiture of the security deposit and recover the loss occasioned to them due to wrongful action of the claimants from the amount available with them. The respondents were however bound to mitigate their loss to the possible extent, through their timely action for carrying out the work at the most competitive rates. Considering all the facts placed before, me, it can not be said that the respondents have not suffered loss for the breach caused by the claimants. Keeping in mind the principles of mitigation, I hold that the claimants are liable to compensate to the respondents towards part of loss suffered by them, worked out as under :-
1. Tendered cost of claimants work Rs.69,59,172/-
2. Work completed by the claimants Rs. 7,72,630/-
3. Work left out Rs.61,86,097/- Balance works
4. Estimated cost Rs. 61,22,861/-
5. Tendered cost Rs. 71,13,625/-
AS.49/2003 16
6. Total liability of the respondents (71,13,625 + 7,72,630) Rs.78,86,625/-
7. Less amount as per claimants tendered costs Rs.69,58,172/-
8. Excess liability Rs. 9,27,128/-
9. Less for mitigation on account of :
(a) assessed escalation under clause 10cc @ 6% on 1 above (-) Rs.4,17,550/-
(b) other factors e.g. uncompetitive for balance work, inflation, and other factors, assessed @ 3% of 5 above (-) Rs. 2,13,408/-
recoverable from the claimants towards final bill Rs.23,609/-
I assess that the respondents are entitled to recover a sum of Rs.3,29,779/- from the claimants. And the respondents are entitled to adjust the amount of S.D/EMD of Rs.1,00,000/- available with them. A net amount of Rs.2,29,779/- is awarded to the respondents, in their counter claim."
(underlined by me)
16) On perusal of findings arrived at by learned Arbitrator, it is clear that learned Arbitrator has passed the award for return of Security Deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- under Claim No.1 and awarded a sum of Rs.3,29,779/- under Counter Claim No. 1 as to extra costs for executing the balance work as against the claim of Rs.14,49,176 as claimed by AS.49/2003 17 Defendant No.1 and thereafter, learned Arbitrator adjusted the Security Deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the counter claim awarded to 1st Defendant and held that 1st Defendant is entitled to net amount of Rs.2,29,779/- towards the Counter Claim No.1. When such is the case, Plaintiff's contention that when contract is rescinded by Defendant No.1, Plaintiff is entitled to security deposit does not hold good. Plaintiff has taken such frivolous contention despite awarding of security deposit amount under Claim No.1
17) Plaintiff's contention is that, learned Arbitrator erred in not considering Section 64 of the Indian Contract Act. Section 64 of the Indian Contract reads thus :
"64. Consequences of rescission of a voidable contract.- When a person at whose option a contract is voidable rescinds it, the other party thereto need not perform any promise therein contained in which he is the promiser. The party rescinding a voidable contract shall, if he had received any benefit thereunder from another party to such contract, restore AS.49/2003 18 such benefit, so far as may be, to the person from whom it was received."
Section 64 of the Contract Act specifically deals with the consequences of rescission of a voidable contract. Section 64 is applicable in case of voidable contract only. Same cannot be made applicable in this case. Here, contract was validly executed between Plaintiff and Defendant and same was rescinded by Defendant No.1 as Plaintiff breached the contract. Learned Arbitrator has specifically held that, "Claimant did abandon the work, thus causing fundamental breach and the 1 st Defendant's action to rescind the contract was strictly in terms of the relevant contract clause." Despite such specific conclusion, learned Arbitrator has taken lenient view and considered the claim of Plaintiff under Claim No.1 and awarded Security Deposit retained by 1st Defendant and same was adjusted towards Counter Claim of Defendant No.1.
AS.49/2003 19 Hence, it has to be said that there is no substance in the contention of Plaintiff.
18) On coming to the additional claims of Plaintiff made before learned Arbitrator, it is clear that learned Arbitrator has considered Plaintiff's additional Claim No.1 to 5 and allowed the same in part and adjusted the same towards the Counter Claim Nos. 1 and 2 as awarded in favour of Defendant No.1. Learned Arbitrator, after adjusting Claim No.1 and additional Claim No.1 to 5 as awarded to Plaintiff towards the Counter Claim awarded to 1st Defendant, has held that 1st Defendant is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,47,279/- and interest at the rate of 8% per annum, vide impugned award dated 02.07.2003. When such is the case, learned Arbitrator has passed correction award dated 05.08.2003 by completely modifying the Counter Claim No.1 as awarded under impugned award dated 02.07.2003 and thereby AS.49/2003 20 enhanced the Counter Claim of 1 st Defendant to an extent of Rs.9,28,028/- and after adjusting the Security Deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- under Claim No.1 and amount awarded under additional Claim No. 1 to 5, finally, passed correction award dated 05.08.2003 for Rs.7,45,780/- in favour of 1 st Defendant against Plaintiff. It is relevant to mention the modified portion of Counter claim under Counter Claim No.1 as awarded by learned Arbitrator in correction award dated 05.08.2003.
" And whereas some arithmetical errors in the award so published by me have been noticed. I therefore make the following changes to the award published, under S-33 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996."
(underlined by me)
19) On comparing the award amount passed under Counter Claim No.1, vide award dated 02.07.2003 with the award amount passed under Counter Claim No.1 vide correction award dated 05.08.2003, makes it clear that, learned Arbitrator has substantially enhanced the Counter Claim No.1 AS.49/2003 21 of 1st Defendant under correction award and such enhancement has been made without any basis. Law as to correction and interpretation of award is laid down in Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It reads as follows :
"33. Correction and interpretation of award; additional award.- (1) Within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award, unless another period of time has been agreed upon by the parties -
(a) a party, with notice to the other party, may request the arbitral tribunal to correct any computation errors, any clerical or typographical errors or any other errors of a similar nature occurring in the award;
(b) if so agreed by the parties, a party, with notice to the other party, may request the arbitral tribunal to give an interpretation of a specific point or part of the award.
(2) If the arbitral tribunal considers the request made under sub-section (1) to be justified, it shall made the correction or give the interpretation within thirty days from the receipt of the request and the interpretation shall form part of the arbitral award.
(3) The arbitral tribunal may correct any error of the type referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), on its own initiative, within thirty days from the date of the arbitral award.
(4) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a party with notice to the other AS.49/2003 22 party, may request, within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award, the arbitral tribunal to make an additional arbitral award as to claims presented in the arbitral proceedings but omitted from the arbitral award.
(5) If the arbitral tribunal considers the request made under sub-section (4) to be justified, it shall make the additional arbitral award within sixty days from the receipt of such request.
(6) The arbitral tribunal may extend, if necessary, the period of time within which it shall make a correction, give an interpretation or make an additional arbitral award under sub-section (2) of sub0section (5).
(7) Section 31 shall apply to a correction or interpretation of the arbitral award or to an additional arbitral award made under this Section. "
20) Under Clauses (a) or (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 33 of the Act, if the party intends to correct any computational errors, any clerical or typographical errors or any other errors of the similar nature occurring in the award with notice to the other party may request the arbitral tribunal for such correction of award within 30 days from the date of receipt of the award. A bare reading of the correction award, dated 05.08.2003 makes it clear AS.49/2003 23 that, no computational errors or clerical or typographical errors or any other errors of a similar nature have been corrected, instead, learned arbitrator enhanced claim amount under Counter Claim No.1 without giving any findings. Correction award as to Counter Claim No.1 reads thus :
" May now be read as
1. Tendered cost of claimants work Rs.63,85,071/-
2. Work completed by claimants Rs. 7,72,630/-
3. Work left out Rs.56,12,441/- Balance works
4. Estimated cost Rs. 61,22,861/-
5. Tendered cost Rs. 71,13,625/-
6. Total liability of the respondents (71,13,625 + 7,72,630)= Rs.78,86,625/-
7. Less amount as per claimants tendered cost Rs.63,85,071/-
8. Excess liability Rs. 15,01,184/-
9. Less for mitigation on account of :
(a) assessed escalation under clause 10cc @ 6% on 1 above (-) Rs.3,83,104/-
(b) other factors e.g. uncompetitive for balance work, inflation, and other factors, assessed @ 3% of 5 above (-) Rs. 2,13,408/-
Recoverable from the claimants towards final bill Rs.23,609/-
AS.49/2003 24 I assess that the respondents are entitled to recover a sum of Rs.9,28,280/- from the claimants. And the respondents are entitled to adjust the amount of S.D/EMD of Rs.1,00,000/- available with them. A net amount of Rs.8,28,280/- is awarded to the respondents, in their counterclaim."
(underlined by me)
21) It appears from the correction award dated 05.08.2003 that, no application has been proceeded from either of the parties for correction of the award dated 02.07.2003. Learned Arbitrator suo moto proceeded to pass correction award by enhancing the Counter Claim No.1 after invoking Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Even no notice was given to the parties before invoking Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Same was done after lapse of 30 days from the date of passing of award, dated 02.07.2003. Of course, sub-Section 3 of Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 authorizes the arbitral tribunal to correct any error of the type referred to in clause (a) of sub-section AS.49/2003 25 (1) on its own initiative within thirty days from the date of the arbitral award. Here, learned Arbitrator on his own accord passed correction award after lapse of 30 days stating to be the arithmetical error. Learned Arbitrator awarded Rs.3,29,779/- towards counter Claim No.1 under award dated 02.07.2003 and later, while passing correction award, all of a sudden jumped to conclusion that Defendant No.1 is entitled to Rs.9,28,280/-. Learned Arbitrator has arrived at such conclusion in absence of any application from either of the parties and without evidence and hearing. Arithmetical error is an error apparent on the face of the record and does not depend for its discovery on argument or disputation. In this case, learned Arbitrator, without following the provisions of law as laid down in Section 33 of the Act, has arrived at de novo conclusion on his own accord without any materials and without any notice to the parties.
AS.49/2003 26 Plaintiff, in support of his contention, has placed reliance on the following Judgments.
(1) AIR 2010 Himachal Pradesh 46 [H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority V. M/s.Kapil Constructions] " Arbitration and Conciliation Act, (26 of 1996), S.33 - Correction of award - Application for - Principles of natural justice have not been excluded by provisions of S.33 of Act - Issuing notice to opposite party also carries with it a duty to hear parties on maintainability and merits of application filed before Arbitrator - Act does not contemplate arbitrator acting ex parte on his own - Thus, Arbitrator cannot act unilaterally on his own on mere asking of party without notice to opposite side and without hearing him."
(2) LAWS (KAR) 2000 1250 [V.S.Reddy Vs. Shri.M.Jayakumar and Another] " Headnote : Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 33, 33(1), 33(1)(b), 34 - Application for interpretation - An application purporting to be one under Section 33 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for interpretation of the award was then made by the petitioner, which has been upon consideration rejected by the Arbitrator in terms of order - While a request for correction of any computation, clerical or other error can be made by any party, a request for interpretation of any specific point or part of the award under Clause 9(b) is permissible only if the parties have so agreed - An occasion to give an AS.49/2003 27 interpretation would in turn arise only if there was any ambiguity in the award or the conclusion drawn on any point - If the Petitioner has any grievance against the award made by the Arbitrator, his remedy lies in making an application for setting aside the same under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996."
22) Ratio as laid down in above judgments has substantiated that, any computation, clerical or other error is permissible only if the parties have agreed so. Otherwise, all such correction to the award would tantamount to unilateral correction and same is not sustainable in law. Further, if the parties have any grievance against the award, his remedy lies in making an application for setting aside the same under Section 34 of the Act and the same cannot be corrected by arbitral tribunal suo moto and even on the request of the parties on the ground of computation, clerical or other error. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority reported in (2015) 3 SCC 49, was pleased to hold that 'award AS.49/2003 28 is passed in contravention of substantive law of India or Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or terms of the contract would be regarded as patent illegality and same requires to be set aside'. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that, the correction award dated 05.08.2003 is patently illegal and the same was passed without any sort of evidence by the learned Arbitrator on his own initiative in contravention of Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the same deserves to be set aside. This Court finds no fault in the award, dated 02.07.2003 and the same has been passed by learned Arbitrator after considering the evidence placed before him and the same is based on reasons, which requires to be upheld. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 partly in the affirmative.
23) Point No.2: For the foregoing discussion and answer to Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following -
AS.49/2003 29 ORDER (1) Suit filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by Plaintiff is hereby allowed in part. (2) The award dated 02.07.2003 passed by the learned Arbitrator /Defendant No.2 in ARB/KKM/SZ-
III/291;is hereby upheld and Correction Award dated 05.08.2003 passed by learned Arbitrator/Defendant No.2 in ARB/KKM/SZ-III/291/460; is hereby set aside.
(3) No order as to costs.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized by her, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 12th day of June, 2019.) (RAMA NAIK) VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
AS.49/2003 30